U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Roadblocks

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would
decide whether police roadblocks to catch drug offenders sweep too broadly
and violate the constitutional rights of motorists.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal in defense of the checkpoints by
Indianapolis, where police have stopped all vehicles in an effort to
interrupt the flow of illegal drugs through the city.

At the roadblocks, police officers checked license and vehicle
registrations, motorists were examined for any signs of drug use and a
drug-sniffing dog walked around the outside of each stopped car.

The justices will consider a U.S. appeals court ruling that the roadblocks
were unlawful under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which guarantees
protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The city sought to operate the checkpoints so that no motorist was stopped
for more than five minutes. In six roadblocks between August and November
1998, more than 1,100 vehicles were stopped and 104 motorists were arrested
- -- half for drug offenses and half on other charges.

Two individuals, who each alleged they had been illegally stopped, sued as
part of a class-action lawsuit claiming the roadblocks swept too broadly
and lacked the constitutionally required ``individualized suspicion'' of
wrongdoing.

Deep Division Around Country

A federal judge upheld the roadblocks, saying they imposed a ``minimal
intrusion on motorists.'' The judge said the Supreme Court in 1990 upheld a
similar sobriety checkpoint.

But a Chicago-based appeals court disagreed, saying the city had failed to
establish ``urgent considerations of public safety'' that would justify the
stopping of ``a completely random sample of drivers.''

The ruling noted that state and federal appeals courts around the country
were deeply divided on the legality of roadblocks to detect drug use and
trafficking.

Indianapolis appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the city's interest in
eradicating a drug ``epidemic'' outweighed any inconvenience that motorists
may suffer.

It said the question was an important, recurring one, and that Supreme
Court review was needed to provide guidance to law enforcement and avoid
wasteful litigation.

Lawyers for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, representing those who
challenged the roadblocks, said the appeal should be denied.

``There is no need to expand the well-accepted boundaries of the Fourth
Amendment and there is no need to change the current calculus, which
recognizes that cause must be shown for a criminal investigatory stop,''
they said.

The lawyers said the appeals court ruling conformed with Supreme Court
precedent.

The justices will hear arguments in the case and then issue a ruling during
their upcoming term that begins in October.